The State of the Evidence

[Jeanne]

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I very much enjoyed working there, but it was like any other job, really, except for the weekly team devotional and the religious focus. I worked with some really wonderful people there, though I had a few unpleasant experiences, as with any other job (it was the only job where anyone has literally screamed at me). At the time it was my dream job. I had done an internship there when I was in grad school, and I was very sad when it ended. I had this hope that it would eventually turn into a job. After I finished grad school, I got a job in Provo at a smallish software company and was made team lead after a few months. About a year into that job, I got a call from my old manager at the Church Office Building asking if I wanted to come and work there. It was a "lateral move," as they say: the pay was a little better, but the benefits weren't as good. The only problem was that we had bought a home in Orem, so I had to commute by bus to downtown Salt Lake. After a year and a half, the commute was taking a toll on me. I was exhausted and had no time to work on my master's thesis (I was young men's president at the time), so we prayed hard that we'd be able to make a move closer to work, but we couldn't find a house close enough that we liked and could afford. Out of the blue, I got a job offer from a larger company in Provo, so no more commute, and the pay was much better. My wife and I both felt strongly this was an answer to prayer, so I took the job.

Looking back on it, I realize that being an editor at the church, although it was interesting and rewarding, used only a small fraction of my skills, and my career choices would have been considerably narrowed had I stayed. So, it was a good move for me, and I've never regretted it. I still have good friends who work there, and the job was fun. If nothing else, I'm glad I left because I would have been in a terrible position had I experienced my crisis of faith as a long-term church employee. I don't have it in me to fake it, but the skills I used there probably wouldn't have been very marketable. 

A man of many talents!  I am so glad that you path has taken a turn with better outcomes all around.  No doubt part of all your experiences have helped you find yourself. 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not saying it does, but it is possible because I can't tell the difference. Read the Improbability Principle.  

http://www.scientificamerican.com/store/books/the-improbability-principle/

Please read about patternicity too. Your experiences may be real, but there are psychological explanations. 

The improbability principle, if I understand it correctly, is about coincidences, coincidences that people think are extraordinary and inexplicable, such as a "Dennis the Menace" character being created in the United Kingdom and in the United States without the respective authors knowing about each other or their creations. That does not seem to apply to spiritual experiences.

As for patternicity, I am aware of that tendency in human beings as well as in the animal kingdom. That is a possibility. But a mental hallucination would be more probable than that. But I know that I did not see an illusion in my first experience. I saw something that I had had no exposure to and only came to know what it was a bit later in life. That vision was accompanied by a message that formed inside my head. The second experience was so real as to be almost visual, laying out a course of action that I must take, in order to achieve a goal. I will not go into specifics. They are personal. But I know what I experienced. I have had dreams and inspirations, etc. since those times, but nothing like the clear cut communications that I experienced those two times.

Whatever you believe or do not believe is your own choice. But until you have had such an experience, you will not be able to understand it. Sort of like experiencing a kidney stone. You cannot really describe it to someone who has never went through that process, but when it happens, you will understand. (The results are much more pleasant with the spiritual experiences, unless maybe there is one of the Alma the Younger type.)

Glenn

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

That does not seem to apply to spiritual experiences.

For example, say you have a feeling to visit a friend, the next day someone tells your friend is very sick. The improbability Principle can apply. 

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I saw something that I had had no exposure to and only came to know what it was a bit later in life. 

Memory can easily be manipulated, that is why cops don't show a picture of the suspect to eyewitnesses. 

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 That is a possibility. But a mental hallucination would be more probable than that

It is possible, even a healthy person can suffer a hallucination. 

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Whatever you believe or do not believe is your own choice. But until you have had such an experience, you will not be able to understand it.

I understand what you are saying, I used to tell others the same thing.  

[Glenn101]

10 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I understand what you are saying, I used to tell others the same thing.  

But you were speaking from inexperience. 

This ia an issue that will only be settled for some, maybe many when the next dispensation rolls in. I don't know what you believe in or don't believe in. I am comfortable in my beliefs and experiences.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/14/2016 at 4:56 PM, Nevo said:

 

Sorry to take so long to get back to this question, in which you laid out Mosiah 3:5-12, and you (and Gervin) expected me to comment on it.  I do agree with Kevin Christensen's comments (and sources), and have made some of my own comments in passing on the general issue -- which entails the notorious intertextuality in Scripture and how that is to be understood.

In his detailed study of OT sources quoted or alluded to in the NT, Robert G. Bratcher comments on the lack of a precise source for the quotation in James 4:5 (an agraphon), noting that, even though “there is no single O.T. passage which corresponds to” it, “commentators suggest various passages which seem to them to contain the thought expressed in the N.T. quotation,” e.g., Exodus 20:9 and Proverbs 3:34 LXX; cf. Romans 8:26-27, James 4:6.  The scholars recognize that a translator may express a thought in a variety of ways.  The same applies to James 5:4, which is closely paralleled by Isaiah 5:9, even though Deuteronomy 24:15 has some of the same ideas in a less recognizable form.  Bratcher, ed., Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, 3rd ed., UBS Helps for Translators (United Bible Societies, 1987), 73 n. 3.

In his study of the same pericope which you laid out, our old friend Rob Bowman (who got his PhD recently) said “the issue here is not the words themselves (the Old Testament uses corresponding Hebrew words that mean atonement, blood, Christ, and Lord) but the way they are put together to express an obviously explicitly Christian theological concept.”

Dr. Bowman goes on to say:

Quote

The point here is not that the author of Mosiah 3 combed through the New Testament pulling out phrases and partial statements here and there to use in his composition. The manner in which the allusions are made demonstrates quite clearly that this is not the case. Rather, the author of Mosiah 3 was someone thoroughly steeped in the text of the King James Bible, someone who was very familiar with the New Testament and could weave its statements together in his own creative fashion. While a few of these apparent allusions might be discounted as coincidentally similar wording, many of them cannot plausibly be so dismissed. Moreover, the cumulative weight of the many apparent allusions is simply too great to explain away. The thick tapestry of allusions in the passage shows beyond reasonable doubt that it was composed by someone familiar with the King James Bible.  http://mit.irr.org/mosiah-318-19-ancient-chiasmus-or-modern-composition 

I think that he makes too much of the similar lingo and concepts used in Mosiah 3, and I share the view of Brant Gardner, whom he cites:

Quote

“the close resemblance in wording stems from the similarity of the message and Joseph’s familiarity with KJV wording.” – Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (SLC: Kofford Books, 2007), 3:146.

For one thing, I don't think that Rob went far enough in sourcing the language and concepts, he did not consider the nature of prophecy (having an apriori view that the BofM is a fraud), and does not seem to be aware that the translation of the BofM was made around 2 centuries before Joseph.

Here is my comparative chart:

Mosiah 3,5-12 chart.pdf

Edited August 1, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Gervin]

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 4:00 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

<ignore>

 

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 6:15 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry to take so long to get back to this question, in which you laid out Mosiah 3:5-12, and you (and Gervin) expected me to comment on it.

I was more interested in a scholarly response to Nevo's observation that "What we find in Benjamin's speech is full-fledged post-70 CE Christianity."  (from his 7/15 post)

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 6:15 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

... and does not seem to be aware that the translation of the BofM was made around 2 centuries before Joseph.

Don't be too hard on Mr. Bowman; apparently the Church itself is also unaware of when the translation of the BofM took place:

"The angel charged Joseph Smith to translate the book from the ancient language in which it was written."

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Gervin said:

I was more interested in a scholarly response to Nevo's observation that "What we find in Benjamin's speech is full-fledged post-70 CE Christianity."  (from his 7/15 post)

Don't be too hard on Mr. Bowman; apparently the Church itself is also unaware of when the translation of the BofM took place:

"The angel charged Joseph Smith to translate the book from the ancient language in which it was written."

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

As usual, you have a non sequitur response.  One of the meanings of "translate" is "transmit," and Royal Skousen has emphasized that again and again.  Sorry that you don't understand the full semantic range of such words, but claiming an interest in scholarship would mean that you know what that means.  You have never evinced an interest in scholarship on this board, Gervin, even though I have repeatedly urged you in that direction.

Moreover, here you make the fallacious attribution of anthropomorphic qualities to an institution.  Institutions do not have awareness or unawareness, people do.

[Gervin]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As usual, you have a non sequitur response.  One of the meanings of "translate" is "transmit," and Royal Skousen has emphasized that again and again.  Sorry that you don't understand the full semantic range of such words, but claiming an interest in scholarship would mean that you know what that means.  You have never evinced an interest in scholarship on this board, Gervin, even though I have repeatedly urged you in that direction.

I'm satisfied that you can't provide a cogent response to the proposition that King Benjamin's speech is a modern day anachronism (your pitiful carping about me is just a weak distraction).

 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, here you make the fallacious attribution of anthropomorphic qualities to an institution.  Institutions do not have awareness or unawareness, people do.

Here are some more fallacious attributions of anthropomorphic qualities to an institution that you can complain about:

“The Church is happy to be a participant in any and all community projects that are worthy.” - President Kimball

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/07/a-prophet-cares?lang=eng

"While we are not in a position to evaluate specific medical claims, the Church understands that there are some individuals who may benefit from the medical use of compounds found in marijuana." - Church Newsroom

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-urges-cautious-approach-medical-marijuana-issue-utah

“The Church believes in divine revelation from a Heavenly Father ..." Dr. James O. Mason

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1977/01/fyi-for-your-information?lang=eng

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/3/2016 at 10:45 PM, Gervin said:

I'm satisfied that you can't provide a cogent response to the proposition that King Benjamin's speech is a modern day anachronism (your pitiful carping about me is just a weak distraction).

I replied to your weak assertion with multiple, substantive entries and citations, and you haven't replied to any of them, except to make the false claim of "distraction."  Really, Gervin, are you so insincere that a real reply is beyond you?

Here are some more fallacious attributions of anthropomorphic qualities to an institution that you can complain about: .................................

Yes, and each of them is as wrong as you are.  You make a habit of substituting folderol and fallacy for substantive argument.  Aren't you tired of that yet?

 

 

[Gervin]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 2:03 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I replied to your weak assertion with multiple, substantive entries and citations, and you haven't replied to any of them, except to make the false claim of "distraction."  Really, Gervin, are you so insincere that a real reply is beyond you?

Nevo (and Rob Bowman in the article you cite) both provide some compelling cultural and theological ideas that cast King Benjamin’s speech as an anachronism.  That is what I thought you might respond to.

[Gervin]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 0:07 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

One can only "get away from a predetermined conclusion" through the communal application of the scientific method -- in which, over time, a variety of scholars bring their analytic skills to bear, not only on the facts, but also on the various biases and prejudices which precede the discussion.  In the midst of all that, it is hard for some non-scholars to avoid summary judgments or to make harsh declaratory statements as to what the facts mean.

Here, you seem to be a proponent of "the scientific method" and eschew the summary judgments of non-scholars.

Quote

 

For one thing, I don't think that Rob went far enough in sourcing the language and concepts, he did not consider the nature of prophecy (having an apriori view that the BofM is a fraud), and does not seem to be aware that the translation of the BofM was made around 2 centuries before Joseph.

 

Here, you chastise Rob for not considering "the nature of prophecy."

What scientific methods should a scholar be familiar with when considering the "nature of prophecy"?

[cynth]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 2:03 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm satisfied that you can't provide a cogent response to the proposition that King Benjamin's speech is a modern day anachronism (your pitiful carping about me is just a weak distraction).

I replied to your weak assertion with multiple, substantive entries and citations, and you haven't replied to any of them, except to make the false claim of "distraction."  Really, Gervin, are you so insincere that a real reply is beyond you?

Here are some more fallacious attributions of anthropomorphic qualities to an institution that you can complain about: .................................

Yes, and each of them is as wrong as you are.  You make a habit of substituting folderol and fallacy for substantive argument.  Aren't you tired of that yet?

 the red is RFS, correct?  It's difficult to follow when responses are put inside another's quotes. 

[Gervin]

14 minutes ago, cynth said:

 the red is RFS, correct?  It's difficult to follow when responses are put inside another's quotes. 

Correct / Agree

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Gervin said:

Nevo (and Rob Bowman in the article you cite) both provide some compelling cultural and theological ideas that cast King Benjamin’s speech as an anachronism.  That is what I thought you might respond to.

Nevo's initial request to me made no mention of Rob Bowman.  I am the one who brought that well-written article into the conversation, as you yourself admit.  I not only responded to that article, but I also made other relevant comments (as did Kevin Christensen), but you failed to engage any of those issues or comments.  You were not even able to discuss Dr Bowman's article intelligently.  What gives, Gervin?  How come you are so detached from this debate?  So much so that I must carry both sides for you?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Gervin said:

Here, you seem to be a proponent of "the scientific method" and eschew the summary judgments of non-scholars.

Here, you chastise Rob for not considering "the nature of prophecy."

What scientific methods should a scholar be familiar with when considering the "nature of prophecy"?

Rob is himself a believer in biblical prophecy.  The scientific method for understanding prophecy is to go over a goodly number of examples in the Bible and then to apply the comparative method of analysis to them.  I have many times cited and quoted non-Mormon scholars on the characteristics of biblical prophecy.  Instead of taking that into account, Rob applied his apriori belief that the BofM must be fiction/fraud, making any comparison unnecessary.  That sort of prejudice is not only not scientific, it also ignores the pattern of real non-Mormon scholars examining LDS prophecy in detail -- as Jan Shipps did when she created an Excel chart of all of Joseph Smith's revelations (published and unpublished).  She was thus able to elicit significant patterns, and she mentioned them in comments delivered at the Claremont Graduate Univ.

The same applies to studying claims about King Benjamin's Speech through close examination of its intertextuality, and of how translators typically employ familiar phrases in rendering certain kinds of texts.  You willfully ignore all of that.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, cynth said:

 the red is RFS, correct?  It's difficult to follow when responses are put inside another's quotes. 

Yeh, and it used to be much easier to isolate parts of a post and reply to each.  I have used color coding to clarify what is going on.  Sorry.

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, and it used to be much easier to isolate parts of a post and reply to each.  I have used color coding to clarify what is going on.  Sorry.

One way I get around this is to leave a portion of the post at the top with the link to the original post and then copy and paste the portion I want to comment on below and just put a quote box around it, then make my comments, like this:

Quote

I have used color coding to clarify what is going on.  Sorry.

Sometimes I leave the whole post above for context and sometimes I edit out the portion I have copied below.

I agree it used to be better and wish we could dial it back, but it is what it is I suppose

[Nevo]

On 8/1/2016 at 3:15 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry to take so long to get back to this question, in which you laid out Mosiah 3:5-12, and you (and Gervin) expected me to comment on it.  

Hi Robert. I actually didn't expect you to comment on that post. I wrote: "Perhaps you can ask Professors Blum and Lizorkin-Eyzenberg whether they think [Mosiah 3:5–12] date to the second century BCE. I'm interested to hear their response as they consider [those passages] with 'ancient eyes.'" The point being that the faculty of eteacherbiblical.com would presumably recognize the explicitly Christian nature of several of the passages:

• "[God] shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay."

• "He shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore."

• "He shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary."

• "He cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him."

• "He shall rise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world."

• "His blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam."

In your response you write that "scholars recognize that a translator may express a thought in a variety of ways." I agree, but the problems here go well beyond wording. The concepts themselves are anachronistic, not just the words used to express them. You seem to apprehend the argument, since you quote Rob Bowman making the same point, but you don't actually address it. You simply state your view that Rob didn't go far enough "in sourcing the language and concepts" and "consider[ing] the nature of prophecy." I am not optimistic that first-millennium BCE sources can be found for the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Fall, personal salvation through faith on Jesus' name, and Jesus' redemptive suffering and death in Gethsemane and on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead, but I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

 

[Nevo]

On 8/8/2016 at 10:55 AM, Gervin said:

Nevo (and Rob Bowman in the article you cite) both provide some compelling cultural and theological ideas that cast King Benjamin’s speech as an anachronism.  That is what I thought you might respond to.

I would also be interested in seeing Robert address that post—specifically the point that "ideas about sin, atonement, the afterlife, national and individual 'salvation,' resurrection, the Messiah, the end of the world, etc., all underwent considerable change during the time between Isaiah and Christ, shaped by the experience of exile, Persian influences, the adoption of Aramaic, Hellenization, Roman rule, etc." and that Benjamin's sermon reflects a post-70 CE stage of development. 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Nevo

[consiglieri]

14 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Hi Robert. I actually didn't expect you to comment on that post. I wrote: "Perhaps you can ask Professors Blum and Lizorkin-Eyzenberg whether they think [Mosiah 3:5–12] date to the second century BCE. I'm interested to hear their response as they consider [those passages] with 'ancient eyes.'" The point being that the faculty of eteacherbiblical.com would presumably recognize the explicitly Christian nature of several of the passages:

• "[God] shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay."

• "He shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore."

• "He shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary."

• "He cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him."

• "He shall rise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world."

• "His blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam."

In your response you write that "scholars recognize that a translator may express a thought in a variety of ways." I agree, but the problems here go well beyond wording. The concepts themselves are anachronistic, not just the words used to express them. You seem to apprehend the argument, since you quote Rob Bowman making the same point, but you don't actually address it. You simply state your view that Rob didn't go far enough "in sourcing the language and concepts" and "consider[ing] the nature of prophecy." I am not optimistic that first-millennium BCE sources can be found for the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Fall, personal salvation through faith on Jesus' name, and Jesus' redemptive suffering and death in Gethsemane and on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead, but I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

 

These are important points, Nevo.

I know that back in my personal heyday of Mormon apologetics, I scanned ancient texts to try to find anything that I could use to hang my BOM pre-Christian Christology hat on.

In retrospect, I am only too aware that even then, I was hanging heavy weights on slender threads.

There really is nothing in the Old Testament, or in any pseudepigrapha from before Christ, that gives anything like the detailed foreknowledge of Jesus we find in the Book of Mormon.

I know it is common for apologists to cite to an early writer (Jerome? Justin Martyr?) to the effect that the Jews scrubbed the Old Testament clean of all those problematic references that mention Jesus.

But really, by this point, one would think we would come up with something more solid, given the plethora of ancient OT manuscripts, not to mention pre-Christian pseudepigrapha.

This is one of the fundamental problems with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, in my view.

The fact that it pervasively evinces a pre-Christian knowledge of pretty much every significant aspect of Jesus's birth, life, ministry and death as recorded in the New Testament.

The apologist will counter that, with God, all things are possible, and God must have revealed more about Jesus to the Nephite prophets than he did to the ancient Israelite prophets.

But when you couple this fact with the obvious familiarity of the author of the BOM with the KJV version of the New Testament, it seems a difficult argument to maintain.

[Gray]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

One way I get around this is to leave a portion of the post at the top with the link to the original post and then copy and paste the portion I want to comment on below and just put a quote box around it, then make my comments, like this:

If you hit return a few times in the middle of a quoted post, it will split the quote box in two. You can do this as finely as you like.

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sometimes I leave the whole post above for context and sometimes I edit out the portion I have copied below.

Like so

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree it used to be better and wish we could dial it back, but it is what it is I suppose

And so forth

[Kevin Christensen]

On the topic of the Book of Mormon being "Too Christian before Christ": 

There is Blake Ostler's approach, which follows on from earlier discussions by Hugh Nibley and James Charlesworth.

http://www.blakeostler.com/apologetics.html

Charlesworth's essay is available here:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/reflections-mormonism-judaeo-christian-parallels/7-messianism-pseudepigrapha-and-book

Notably this passage:

Quote

In these three verses, we find what most critical scholars would call clearly Christian phrases; that is, the description is so precise that it is evident it was added after the event. The technical term for this phenomenon is vaticinium ex eventu. [78] The specific details are the clarification that the Messiah will be called “Jesus Christ,” that his mother will be called Mary, that salvation is through faith—indeed faith on his name—that many will say he has a devil, that he will be scourged and crucified, and finally that he will rise on the third day from the dead. Do not these three verses contain a Christian recital of Christ’s life?

How are we to evaluate this new observation? Does it not vitiate the claim that this section of the Book of Mormon, Mosiah, was written before 91 B.C.? Not necessarily so, since Mormons acknowledge that the Book of Mormon could have been edited and expanded on at least two occasions that postdate the life of Jesus of Nazareth. It is claimed that the prophet Mormon abridged some parts of the Book of Mormon in the fourth century A . D . [79] And likewise it is evident that Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century had the opportunity to redact the traditions that he claimed to have received.

Today biblical scholars are making significant and exciting discoveries into the various strata of ancient documents through the use of what is called Redaction Criticism, a method employed to discern the editorial tendencies of an author-compiler. Perhaps it would be wise for specialists to look carefully at this phenomenon in the Book of Mormon. The recognition that the Book of Mormon has been edited on more than one occasion would certainly explain why certain of the messianic passages appear to be Christian compositions.

That will do for some, as an alternative to treating the Book of Mormon like Alexander Campbell did, as a bubble to burst with the slightest pin prick.

But of course, my own approach is suggested by my essay on "The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament" here:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4

Which I introduce with a quote from Margaret Barker from On Earth as It is in Heaven, p 80.

Quote

What is recognisable in temple theology is what we know as Christianity. 

Concerning Nevo's specific issues here:

Quote

The point being that the faculty of eteacherbiblical.com would presumably recognize the explicitly Christian nature of several of the passages:

"[God] shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay."
"He shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore."

"He shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary."

"He cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him."

"He shall rise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world."

"His blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam."

Consider Barker's essay on Atonement: The Rite of Healing:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

It begins with this:

Quote

The death of Jesus was interpreted immediately in terms of atonement, even though the first Christians cannot have been, to use Steiner’s phrase, ‘architects of their own mythology’. That they had been just this, however, is the unacknowledged presupposition of much of the debate. We are given no explanation as to how the two goats of the Day of Atonement found their fulfilment in events which were interpreted as the LORD himself coming to his people as their Redeemer and the renewer of the creation. 

So the issue of who performs the Atonement symbolized by the ritual has this:

Quote

 the high priest wore a golden plate showing a name that only the purified may speak, and ‘that Name has four letters’; and in the Letter of Aristeas which reads ‘On the front of the hallowed diadem… in holy letters on a leaf of gold (the high priest) wears the Name of God’16.
That creation rituals should be performed by the LORD is hardly surprising. If the LORD had bound the creation at the beginning with the great covenant which kept the forces of chaos in their place and gave security to his people, any covenant renewal ceremony must have involved the LORD performing these acts. Atonement rituals repaired the damage to the created order caused by sin through which ‘wrath’ could have broken in with such disastrous consequences. Again the Jewish Encyclopaedia makes an interesting observation: ‘But while, according to Scripture, the high priest made atonement, tradition transferred the atoning power to God’17. 

It's also of interest to me, at least, that Barker has made a very good case that the Old Testament as we have it was selected and edited in response to the rise of Christianity, and that the Christians themselves had very different scriptures.  Justin, the first Christian apologist noted changes in the scriptures hew knew.  Barker has also noted that in comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls differences with the MT, there is a pattern.  The differences occur in passages that were important to the Christians, that is, we can no longer assume that more Christian sounding passages in the Greek Septuagint for example represent Christian interpolations.  And there is the Dead Sea Scrolls appearance of the interesting phrase "son of God" in the Messianic apocalypse, much else that John Tvedtnes compares to the Book of Mormon, even to a specific passage in Mosiah. See the Most Correct Book.  And John Tvedtnes there has pointed out evidence that Jeremiah really did prophesy of Christ, though of course, such things did not survive in the canon, as Justin reported.  And Barker has pointed out the ideological trends in scholarship where "‘The lines of demarcation between systematic theology and Old and New Testament scholarship represent more than mere division of labour; they are ideologically motivated. They represent a collective decision of biblical scholarship that biblical texts are to be construed as something other than Christian scripture.’

See http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/ReflectionsOnBiblicalStudies.pdf

And then we have her interesting observation in Christmas: The Original Story, how Eusebius "knew a version of Psalm 110.3 that had 'Mary' where the present Hebrew has 'womb.' The Hebrew mrhm 'from the womb' has been read as myrm, 'Miriam' that is, Mary."  noting that in the ancient script the letters look similar.  See page 6. 

All of this though, is I think secondary to a more fundamental issue of whether a person can and should have faith in the absence of absolute certainty.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited August 10, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Nevo said:

Hi Robert. I actually didn't expect you to comment on that post. I wrote: "Perhaps you can ask Professors Blum and Lizorkin-Eyzenberg whether they think [Mosiah 3:5–12] date to the second century BCE. I'm interested to hear their response as they consider [those passages] with 'ancient eyes.'" The point being that the faculty of eteacherbiblical.com would presumably recognize the explicitly Christian nature of several of the passages:

• "[God] shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay."

• "He shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore."

• "He shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary."

• "He cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him."

• "He shall rise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world."

• "His blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam."

In your response you write that "scholars recognize that a translator may express a thought in a variety of ways." I agree, but the problems here go well beyond wording. The concepts themselves are anachronistic, not just the words used to express them. You seem to apprehend the argument, since you quote Rob Bowman making the same point, but you don't actually address it. You simply state your view that Rob didn't go far enough "in sourcing the language and concepts" and "consider[ing] the nature of prophecy." I am not optimistic that first-millennium BCE sources can be found for the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Fall, personal salvation through faith on Jesus' name, and Jesus' redemptive suffering and death in Gethsemane and on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead, but I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

One thing is clear to me, even though I mistakenly thought that you might have sincerely asked me about Mosiah 3:5-12.  You do not even accept the clear-cut statements of Dr Bowman at the outset.  Of course it wasn't Bowman that you were asking me about, but I thought that you at least might accept some guidance from him on the nature of the intertextual Judeo-Christian tradition.  Instead you opt for strict bifurcation -- in line with traditional assumptions, which have always been incorrect.  I gave you a number of very important sources, in addition to Bowman, but you chose not to respond to them, apparently pretending that they don't exist.  Perhaps that is the easiest way for you do deal with evidence which doesn't comport with your apriori notions.  But I really thought that you might be the exception, Nevo, since you have in the past been willing to discuss some such evidence.  Why have you suddenly lost heart?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

On the topic of the Book of Mormon being "Too Christian before Christ": 

There is Blake Ostler's approach, which follows on from earlier discussions by Hugh Nibley and James Charlesworth.

http://www.blakeostler.com/apologetics.html

Charlesworth's essay is available here:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/reflections-mormonism-judaeo-christian-parallels/7-messianism-pseudepigrapha-and-book

Notably this passage:

That will do for some, as an alternative to treating the Book of Mormon like Alexander Campbell did, as a bubble to burst with the slightest pin prick.

But of course, my own approach is suggested by my essay on "The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament" here:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4

Which I introduce with a quote from Margaret Barker from On Earth as It is in Heaven, p 80.

Concerning Nevo's specific issues here:

Consider Barker's essay on Atonement: The Rite of Healing:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

It begins with this:

So the issue of who performs the Atonement symbolized by the ritual has this:

It's also of interest to me, at least, that Barker has made a very good case that the Old Testament as we have it was selected an edited in response to the rise of Christianity, and that the Christians themselves had very different scriptures.  Justin, the first Christian apologist noted changes in the scriptures hew knew.  Barker has also noted that in comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls differences with the MT, there is a pattern.  The differences occur in passages that were important to the Christians, that is, we can no longer assume that more Christian sounding passages in the Greek Septuagint for example represent Christian interpolations.  And there is the Dead Sea Scrolls appearance of the interesting phrase "son of God" in the Messianic apocalypse, much else that John Tvedtnes compares to the Book of Mormon, even to a specific passage in Mosiah. See the Most Correct Book.  And John Tvedtnes there has pointed out evidence that Jeremiah really did prophesy of Christ, though of course, such things did not survive in the canon, as Justin reported.  And Barker has pointed out the ideological trends in scholarship where "‘The lines of demarcation between systematic theology and Old and New Testament scholarship represent more than mere division of labour; they are ideologically motivated. They represent a collective decision of biblical scholarship that biblical texts are to be construed as something other than Christian scripture.’

See http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/ReflectionsOnBiblicalStudies.pdf

And then we have her interesting observation in Christmas: The Original Story, how Eusebius "knew a version of Psalm 110.3 that had 'Mary' where the present Hebrew has 'womb.' The Hebrew mrhm 'from the womb' has been read as myrm, 'Miriam' that is, Mary."  noting that in the ancient script the letters look similar.  See page 6. 

All of this though, is I think secondary to a more fundamental issue of whether a person can and should have faith in the absence of absolute certainty.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Wow Kevin- Just plain wow.

Amazing stuff- thanks

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

..................................................................................

The apologist will counter that, with God, all things are possible, and God must have revealed more about Jesus to the Nephite prophets than he did to the ancient Israelite prophets.

But when you couple this fact with the obvious familiarity of the author of the BOM with the KJV version of the New Testament, it seems a difficult argument to maintain.

I know of no scholars who come up with that lame excuse, Counselor, but I do notice that you and others haven't responded to the Jewish and other non-Momron scholars who refute your claims.  I cite and quote them, and they are promptly ignored.

Far more convenient to make a straw man claim about ignorant "apologists," than to deal with the hard facts.  Moreover, all those efforts made by you to defend the BofM (and whatever else Mormon) were immediately hampered by your failure to probe deeply: by actually learning the languages, the archeology, and the history.  It may seem to you and many others that it should be as easy as falling off a log, but that just isn't how it works.  Then too, your purpose was apologetic, which muddies the waters right at the outset.  Purer motives might have helped you learn the disciplines needed, if only out of love for that field of study.  Such knowledge doesn't come cheap.